The Exit Exam, The School Board, and District Elections
There seems to be a divide over education. Some consider denying students the opportunity to walk during graduation an "encouragement." Others want to recognize students who successfully complete high school but happen not to pass the exit exam. It raises questions about the role of school graduations. But does the School Board's make-up affect its ability to address this divide?
Laura Gonzalez, Director, Santa Rosa City Schools Board of Education
On February 10, the Santa Rosa School Board will re-look its policy that forbids high school students from walking in graduation until they pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), even if they have completed all other requirements. The Board’s action in 2007 made Santa Rosa the only (district) in Sonoma County that won’t offer a certificate of completion, which allows participation in graduation ceremonies, but is not equivalent to a diploma.
By state law, students must pass the CAHSEE to get a diploma. Board President Carvolth argued at the time of the Board's 2007 decision, that it would send a message to students saying “You can’t do it,” if the Board were to let them walk without passing the CAHSEE After a stormy session, she and like-minded board members voted 5-2 for what they evidently saw as upholding standards and providing the right encouragement.
On the other side, representatives and friends of the Latino community passionately argued that the focus should be on motivating Latino students to stay with it to the end in school, and on recognizing them when they do so. Latino family members come from all over to do just that for seniors at graduation time. To deny a certificate of completion to a handful of unsuccessful test-takers is culturally insensitive and unjustified -- and in real life, no one need fear that future employers or colleges will mistake a certificate of completion for a diploma.
Opinions may differ, but what one cannot dispute is that the impact of the policy falls disproportionately and unfairly on the Latino community. While over 90% of all seniors typically pass the CAHSEE, the few who don’t are almost all Latino kids, who grew up with Spanish spoken at home.
Thus, there are important issues of community input and minority representation involved here. But the School Board, which is elected at-large with all candidates running city-wide, has only one Latina – Laura Gonzalez. One of seven is 14.3%.
That’s way out of whack with today’s student population. The latest statistics posted on the Santa Rosa School District website are for October 2007, and show Latino enrollment near 31% for SR secondary schools and at 52.5% for elementary. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to read the significance of those numbers.
When the School Board takes up the matter again on Feb. 10, it should listen to Ms. Gonzalez and the voices of the Latino community. There is no compelling case to over-ride the views of those in our society most affected by the decision.
Which brings me to District Elections for School Boards. Just about a year ago, in the face of a lawsuit by the San Francisco-based Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, the School District in Madera County changed from at-large to district elections, and soon thereafter, 28 of 32 districts in Fresno County followed suit. The percentages of Latino students are much higher over in that part of the Central Valley, but the principle was the one at issue right here in Santa Rosa – are the views of diverse elements in the community being given due weight, and if not, is our current at-large voting system part of the problem?
